Arawra

Why can't we have nice things... like pancakes?

To be honest I think expecting some separation is reasonable as to not devolve the game into complete toxicity and/or make the game unenjoyable for those who simply want to craft a separate political landscape because that's what the game is supposed to be about. In the same vein though, people who target other players either directly or indirectly and make the game unenjoyable should be liable to face IC consequences from others for such, without chastisement. At the end of the day, we all just wanna play this game and enjoy it~

Congrats guys and good luck ^-^

The time to strike is now o/

Congrats on your kid and good luck, I'm sure you have a bright future ahead of you~

lol have you considered stand up?

Good luck, I hope you succeed~

hugs I'm sad to see you go Dream, I enjoyed all the piano music you shared with me~ I hope things get better for you and maybe then you might feel comfortable to return to the community Farewell :c

Golden Dawn Reichspakt Several other alliances which don't use the theme but are well documented to have fascist undertones (i.e. KT, Morningstar, Micropoc, etc)

Enjoy retirement and good luck to your successors! they have big shoes to fill~

It's sad to see you go but, farewell and good luck Liberty~

I have already explained the issue with nerfing "bombing runs" in another thread and that criticism remains the same. I'm also curious where this feedback has come from because I've legitimately not heard such complaints before, in fact, I have heard the opposite that bombing units is detrimental until you have a clear plane advantage. This only makes that worse. I like the idea, I agree with others however, that there needs to be a cap (maybe 80%) on the max spies before you get locked out of reserving any more spies. This is to prevent the spy war from becoming a guaranteed flip flop of who controls it, because under this system (in its current form) the losing side will simply rebuild, coordinate reactivation at the same DC, and spy wipe the other side, taking control until the enemy rebuilds their own reserve spies and repeats the process over again. This would effectively take the skill out of winning the spy war, instead making it into a constant tug of war which would make war less fun, in a [war] system that is already unattractive. This first project (because of its cost) is targeted towards whales and I really don't think that's what the game needs right now. The mid and low tier need more projects (and more project slots) so this project should have its price lowered or be scrapped altogether. Before the "specialization" argument peeks through the door, this project is a simple discount, it does not help specialize in anything so it should definitely be more accessible to all. I fully agree with Ramona on the second project, see their post if you haven't. Awful. This kind of change really just benefits the mass-member, veteran alliances because half of everyone else's treasures are going to be stripped away from them and fought over by the titans because they can afford to pump credits into their dedicated and large member base that a lot of the smaller alliances don't have, all the while they now have an even less chance of getting their own treasures because these "lottery" treasures were pulled from their own pool. Further, why do we need more ways to spend credits exactly? It seems to me that people buy enough as is, until recently credit prices were hardly pushing above 1m their actual value because the supply was so large. Instead of trying to put already-established mechanics behind a paywall, Alex and his team should be creating new (cosmetic) things to spend them on because this is unnecessary, and an unwelcome money grab. Just no.

lol this is so "get this off of my feed"

It's a shame to see you go, I know you did a lot for the roleplay community here, in addition to all your contributions to the wiki. Good luck, stay well, and know you're always welcome back if you ever want to return~

Though I personally don't feel like this is a great apology, I'm still appreciative that you even made one. Welcome back Astryl~

You can separate the death rates without touching airstrikes on ships at all, another complaint for the longest time has been that ships are too weak, so why not simply buff the naval kill rate against other navy by more than just 10% and then leave ship airstrikes alone? Also I did say it was a small change, but I also said it was a good change, conversely the small change to airstrikes on ships is still a bad change (in my opinion). You also need to consider that the impact is more nuanced than the face value. Ships aren't viable but planes are, and they play a big part in how war currently works, so changing ships doesn't affect much because they barely play a role as is, but changing planes can affect their versatility (and thus viability) and the important role they play in wars currently, hopefully that makes sense~ I don't know if buffing airstrikes is a popular idea or not. It's my opinion that they should be because in the current meta planes' primary use is securing air superiourity (almost exclusively at a war's onset) and protecting your own tanks from being cut in half by air superiourity. In some cases they are used to dogfight planes or airstrike ships. Essentially, we do need to have planes but we barely have to actively use them in wars because their primary function is to protect our own tanks while those tanks do most of the shredding. So the issue at the moment is that planes barely get used to airstrike ships, there's no reason to nerf it, especially if the goal is to not just make units viable to have, but viable to actively use. Simply buffing the ship kill rate instead is a great alternative solution because people have been saying for ages now that ships are practically useless and they need some love. I've read the threads about the spy reserve mechanic so I know what the idea and basis is for it and I personally liked it. However, I wanted to express the two ways I thought it would pan out when coupled with the spy casualty reductions for you and others to consider. I think this is important if you're going to make changes to spies without having implemented this new mechanic yet because changes that seem good right now, could instantly become excessive or inadequate under the new system if/when the mechanic drops.

Honestly airstrikes on ground/naval units are already rather weak and I really think we should be buffing them instead of nerfing them. Not only do the airstrikes on ground units kill less than a ground attack (without stealing money and while costing more MAPs, resistance, gas, and muni), but the airstrikes on ships aren't very effective at neutralizing an opponent's entire navy either, with navy not even being a significant threat that needs neutralizing in the first place. All of this coupled with the fact that, currently, these airstrikes will lose you a lot of precious planes unless your opponent has a huge plane disadvantage (like 1:3). Precious planes which need to be heavily conserved and not overextended because they are the bastion that protects your tanks from being cut in half by air superiourity, as well as protecting all other units from being airstriked. And so, with the above in mind, airstrikes on ships should not be nerfed either. Already at times the amount of ships killed by an airstrike is insignificant, zeroing them via airstrikes for the sake of breaking blockade (only necessitated in rare instances anyway) is hardly viable yet is frankly the best option. Alternatively you have to buy your own (otherwise) useless ships to break the blockade, only to decommission them later or they get destroyed by someone else's massive navy before then, all the while inflating your score like a balloon. None of that is an appealing second option and I think until there is, airstriking ships should be left alone or even buffed. Ship vs ship, small change and probably won't impact much, but good regardless~ Spy changes look okay, though with the reserve/active idea I see one of two things happening: 1. The kill rates are still too high and so one side wins the spy war and holds it for a few weeks while the enemy side rebuilds their spies, and then the enemy side activates their spies and either wipe the opponent's spies and take the spy war from them, or lose all their spies before they get a chance to utilize and rinse and repeat throughout the course of the war. Or 2. The kill rate is too low and the K/D is pretty much equalized to a point that the spy war becomes a grueling battle only to be repeated every time the opponent reactivates their reserved spies. I'm not really sure how I feel about either option at the moment, but maybe there are others that I missed, feel free to point them out to me Also I personally think that units (including nukes/missiles) should not be able to be spied away during beige because that defeats the spirit of the mechanic. I would only make exception to assassinations and intel gathering; Assassinations so that the person in beige cannot build up spies and conduct spy operations unopposed during said beige and gather intel because it does no actual harm to the target. Sorry for the text wall, I didn't feel like enough people were voicing their opinions on these and I certainly don't want them to get pushed through (as is) based on a lack of outspoken critique.

You seem a little jealous but, don't worry, there's plenty of attention to go around friend. I brought you some and some leftover cake from TKR's birthday party

Cheers for 6 more years ^^ Happy birthday~

Not really interested in writing an in-depth explanation on each alliance but I'll give a shorthand description of the parameters for each tier S - strong, influential, really at the top of their game A - strong, influential, great overall, just not enough for me to consider them S tier B - solid alliances but lacking in one area or another with strong potential for improvement to make it into A (or even S) tier C - decent alliances, maybe lacking in a couple areas, but have strong potential/drive to improve and become much better than they currently are D - disappointing, acknowledging the potential to be (so much) better but historically just haven't improved or even tried to E - Bottom of the barrel alliances that don't give me a lot of hope for their futures No opinion - self explanatory, I don't know enough about these alliances or they're too new to comment about Also the tiers are not ordered

I knew I recognized this alliance name and flag! thanks haha

Pink blankies > purple blankies

I love this, good luck guys~

While I'm no fan of ad-hominem either, there wouldn't be any personal business that one "should" know about. Noone is entitled to that information and your phrasing of the "question" came off as condescending for, and while implying that there was, an underlying issue you felt entitled to knowing, please try to be more mindful~

It is a shame there weren't a lot of (good) options to pick from but Guns & Roses is honestly a good name regardless ^_^